The state wants to vaccinate all the children they kidnapped from the FLDS ranch, quoting a supposed law that says vaccinations are a need. I say supposed because the article does not give any number for the law. If there is no number attached to the regulation, it is not a law, but a recommendation. Since CPS has lied and misrepresented facts all throughout this case, and then does so again at the end of this article, I have no idea if this law they quote exists.

Not to mention, all the hearings about custody have not taken place yet. Why not wait and see which children will remain in custody before doing the vaccinations?

Parents are understandably worried that if they refuse, CPS will also use that against them and they will never see their children again. I don’t blame them one bit for having that concern.

CPS is not even giving parents time to show if their children were inoculated-which means some of them will have unnecessary trauma-all because CPS can’t wait to cause more trauma to the children. Then we see those quotes form the article:

Crimmins said he has heard no reports of anyone objecting to being immunized.”

Does he think people actually believe him? First off, a lot of the children who are young will be too scared to say no, not to mention that some of them can’t say no nor do they have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Hmm…not coherent enough to say no-isn’t that the defense used in rape cases? If someone is incapacitated in some way and can not say yes or no to intimate relations, and someone continues to have relations anyway, that person was raped? And the person who went ahead without getting an explicit yes or no can be tried as a rapist?

How is what CPS is doing here any different from rape? Contrary to the lie that Crimmins -what an interesting last name-very close to criminal-said, the article says:

“But calls are being made by older children to their parents at the ranch and one state source familiar with the issue, but not authorized to discuss the matter, confirmed that some older children are refusing shots.”

We know from the previous quote that although children supposedly won’t be forced to have vaccinations, they do need to be inoculated for their own safety. How will this policy work out practically? Crimmins believes all the children need to be inoculated-period. What will he do to get the ones that are refusing to go along with it? Make no mistake, they will be forced somehow to have those shots.

The article is perpetuating the lie that the children have never played with crayons and could not open a juice box. There is video on the internet of children playing with crayons, blocks, paints and a sandbox-all those are toys. And the juice box thing-you know what, I have seen them and the majority of the time I can’t open them. Does that mean CPS should be concerned about me since I can’t open them and therefore would not give them to children in my care? I figure that if I can’t open them, they can’t either.

Lastly the article includes this insinuation:

“Complicating the care is the children’s sheer number and the fact that in many child abuse cases that require children be removed, drug or alcohol addiction is involved.”

No warrants have been issued in this case. The one warrant that was issued was removed due to lack of evidence. No abuse charges have been filed-so much for all that evidence they found.

Perhaps they realize that they have no evidence so now they have to insinuate that some other type of abuse was going on. And now that they have that DNA, they certainly have the means to make their self-fulfilling prophecies come true.